All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Reading computer language development as an evolutionary issue is interesting.

I think although the analogy of a business (Sun) and a computer language (perl) is an okay, even good, analogy, a business organization has more in common with a biological organism than a language, and a language has more in common with a religion than a business.

Although running a business requires winning hearts and minds and using the language involves programmers tapping at keyboards, the question of what will determine perl's future is all in the mind. The difference is the difference between the real and the conceptual.

I thought I had something more witty to say about that difference. Perhapssomething about the ease of marshalling resources.

PHP's future is a lot more insecure than perl's. It has all its eggs in one basket, but perl has its fingers in many pies. The loss of PHP's web niche spells the end of PHP.

In fact, it is better NOT to be the forerunner if you don't know what the race is going to demand of you. Don't try too hard. Think dinosaurs and lizards. Small is better.

The problem of paying close attention to present customers rather than winning new ones is the other side of the coin to buyer lock-in. The seller gets locked in too.

Solving new problems before they come up, the difficult business one, might admit of a recursive solution. If we could do that, this question probably wouldn't be so interesting.

But rather than consider what brings buyers and sellers together, perhaps it is more useful to consider how people choose a religion.

I'm interested in the statement that is perl not a contender in Web-2.0. I thought there was lots of CPAN stuff that could be considered Web-2.0

Not to my knowledge. Parrot has a couple of features to bundle up everything into a single PBC file, and it looks like we can avoid having to require everyone to recompile their own bindings to shared libraries, but there's more to distribution and installation than having a single big blob of code.

Not at all, but I think it’s an orthogonal issue. Ease of installation is a toolchain problem; Perl 6 is a language, not a toolchain. However, I agree that it needs to have a toolchain that’s good enough. There has been some grunting that “we’ll make that work”, but no concrete design has happened.

Personally, I think that’s just as well, since the Perl 5 toolchain is suboptimal anyway, and anything we do for Perl 5 will be roughly applicable to Perl 6 as well, particula

Most importantly the circular dependency issue: AFAIK we don’t have the tooling in place yet by which the CPAN client could upgrade Module::Build before running Build.PL, when a newer version is necessary.

I also remember reading mentions of other issues I’m only vaguely aware of anymore and couldn’t list. None of them sounded unfixable, most in fact benign. I think building XS modules with Module::Build needed more polish? My understanding was that more work was needed to make it really

Trac was very easy to get going for me. Python is no PHP though; I’m sure that if I had wanted to install it with better infrastructure than as a CGI, be it FastCGI or mod_python, it would have been a good deal harder. Regardless, it was easier than most Perl web apps. They could and should be on par with Trac in terms of installation difficulty.

Movable Type is GPL’d, btw… why’s it not free? Am I missing something?

To go off topic a bit...It hasn't been relicensed yet to my knowledge. They're wibbling about it. [movabletype.org] "Before we released an open source version of Movable Type we wanted to engage with the community regarding its development and scope." What a complete waste of time and energy. What's to talk about, JUST RELEASE IT!

Just you watch, they're going to write their own license. I can smell it.

Let me make some sweeping generalizations...

Commercial software dumped onto the open source world acts very differently

I'm interested in the statement that is perl not a contender in Web-2.0. I thought there was lots of CPAN stuff that could be considered Web-2.0

How about OpenGuides [openguides.org]? I haven't seen a *single* other wiki with structured metadata (based on Wiki::Toolkit from the CPAN) and a geo-locational focus. Hell even Tim Berners-Lee said it was cool (I can find the irclog somewhere I'm sure...)

But OpenGuides has the same publicity issues as the rest of Perl I suppose. A dozen or so people actively work in the com

Check out Freebase [freebase.com] and their Metaweb Technology. Watch the first intro movie all the way through.

But OpenGuides has the same publicity issues as the rest of Perl I suppose. A dozen or so people actively work in the community, probably a few hundred more in the world support their local guide. Simply nobody knows about it.

Yep. "How to advertise your web project" is something to be figured out. Here's one way... try searching for it and simil

Check out Freebase and their Metaweb Technology. Watch the first intro movie all the way through.

I'd forgotten about Freebase, OpenGuides pre-dates it by several years (I started my guide in early 2004, and I heard about the software in 2003 at YAPC::EU) and has been alone for so long I'll have to revise my rant now.

Yep, the OpenGuides website needs an overhaul; first it needs to move to the same server as all our Trac stuff. I've sent mail to the person responsible for this, but I don't know when he'll get back to me and even when he does I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment. But thanks very much for pointing it out; we should definitely mention Perl on the front page.